[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[Eeyore]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned at all (sorry if it makes colinz even MORE pissed off) is that the very last ball of the super-over, with two needed to win, would have been called a wide, had Guptil just stood still and left it.

Yes. A bit like the Randall ball in the Nat West Final of, I think, 1985. It's the instinct to play the ball with the focus on what is needed. Batsman just can't help doing it. It would take a brave person to hold the nerve and wait for the spreaded arms.

 

[Eeyore]

I think, for New Zealand, the small comfort is that everyone will remember the losers of this final. It won't just be a footnote against the list of winners.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I had the remote controls in my hand as I was ready to storm off (I've had my fill of England losing in tournaments). When he was caught, I hit the power button and the TV went off. Then just before I switched off the sound I heard Ian shouting 6. What? TV back on. **** me, he stepped on the rope. We just went from needing 22 off 8 with Stokes out, to needing 16 off 8 Stokes back in and on strike.

That moment felt like we scored an equaliser in the last minute of the cup final.

 

[Eeyore]

Would be great to hear from someone else properly looking at it. The part I don't understand is the 'act'. The overthrow itself didn't happen until the act of the ball hitting the bat, therefore is the point at which the batsmen cross taken from the throw, or from the act of hitting Stokes bat which caused the throw to become an overthrow? I don't think it's as clear as Taufel is saying. Had it not hit the bat and gone for 4 direct from the throw I might agree.

The reference is to an overthrow or willful act (I assume such as deliberately kicking the ball over the boundary).

Here is the rule in full:

7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful act of a fielder the runs scored shall be

(i) any runs for penalties awarded to either side and
(ii) the allowance for the boundary and
(iii) the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

Law 18.12(b) (Batsman returning to wicket he has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or willful act

So in this instance it is just the throw we are looking at. In which case they hadn't crossed.

It's a difficult one for umpires in normal matches without TV replays as there is so much going on.

 

[Triggaaar]

That moment felt like we scored an equaliser in the last minute of the cup final.

All of it was mental. 16 off 8 became 15 off 7, and then there were 3 dot balls and it all looked lost. 15 needed off 4 became 3 off 2 (thanks to a great hit followed by the gods interfering to give us the second 6). 3 off 2 and we've got one hand on the cup, but no, it's a ****ing draw!

And as if all that wasn't enough, the super-over was just as dramatic.

If someone wrote that as a script for a movie, it would outdo Rocky in terms of far-fetched bullsh*t Hollywood endings.

None of us will ever see anything like it again.

 

[Eeyore]

[Tweet]1150562893777244160[/Tweet]

Best Tweet by a sportsman ever

 

[Hugo Rune]

England did win, but I think it also fair to say New Zealand did not lose. Both teams were all square after 51 overs. Quite simply the most incredible cricket match in history, and in a final to boot. We'll be picking the bones from this one for a while yet.

Plenty of proud Kiwis there yesterday. I left feeling that the match was a tie and that they almost tossed a coin to get the winner.

What I would say is that scoring boundaries was looking almost impossible until the Super Overs; so a good way to split the sides. As a chasing team, we were giving away wickets to keep players on strike so not really a fair measure to judge the side on. If it had of gone to the toss of a coin, we’d have won that too!

 

[Triggaaar]

Plenty of proud Kiwis there yesterday. I left feeling that the match was a tie and that they almost tossed a coin to get the winner.

What I would say is that scoring boundaries was looking almost impossible until the Super Overs; so a good way to split the sides. As a chasing team, we were giving away wickets to keep players on strike so not really a fair measure to judge the side on. If it had of gone to the toss of a coin, we’d have won that too!

Following a tie in the super-over, they could have decided it on the result of the group game between the two teams. Or who finished highest in the group stages.

 

[Triggaaar]

So in this instance it is just the throw we are looking at. In which case they hadn't crossed.

I disagree:
"the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

So you can ignore the runs in progress - the two they ran had been completed, so you don't look at the instant of the throw or act.

If the fielder had stopped the boundary (after the ball hit Stokes's bat), you'd hardly say England only ran one run, when we'd finished running two. If the fielder who stopped the ball from the initial shot had then thrown it out for a 4, then yes, we'd not have completed our 2 runs yet, so 5 would make sense.

 

[hart's shirt]

 

[Eeyore]

No:
"the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

So you can ignore the runs in progress - the two they ran had been completed, so you don't look at the instant of the throw or act.

If the fielder had stopped the boundary, you'd hardly say England only ran one run, when we'd finished running two.

At risk of it sounding like a bootstrap paradox, there were two completed runs and the boundary.

However, the overthrow ruling applies from the point of which the return is made 'the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act'

Runs completed by the batsman= 1
Runs in progress if they had crossed at the instant of the throw= 0 (they hadn't crossed)
Boundary= 4

Total= 5

It's such an interesting one, not detracting from England's deserved win either, and will hopefully draw more interest in the intricacies of the game.

 

[Willow]

Following a tie in the super-over, they could have decided it on the result of the group game between the two teams. Or who finished highest in the group stages.

Or do the right thing and play a second super over with different bowlers. Job done. None of this countback rubbish, and a clear and obvious winner.

 

[Triggaaar]

Or do the right thing and play a second super over with different bowlers. Job done. None of this countback rubbish, and a clear and obvious winner.

This game didn't see the world's first super-over, there have been plenty of them, and the rules are simple, clear and obvious. If it's a tie after the super-over, the winner is decided by the number of boundaries in the game. There is then a clear and obvious winner.

Would you care to highlight all the times in the past that you've said this method of deciding the game isn't fair?

 

[Triggaaar]

At risk of it sounding like a bootstrap paradox, there were two completed runs and the boundary.

Agreed.

However, the overthrow ruling applies from the point of which the return is made 'the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act'

'or the act'. What is the 'act'? Is it when the ball hit Ben's bat? It's difficult to imagine this undefined 'act' being anything other than the when he hit it, in which case, they'd definitely crossed.

And a separate point (not detracting from the first) - imagine that the fielder had stopped the boundary. You're line of argument would be that it's 1 completed run, plus 0. You obviously know that's not right.

 

[Eeyore]

Agreed.

'or the act'. What is the 'act'? Is it when the ball hit Ben's bat? It's difficult to imagine this undefined 'act' being anything other than the when he hit it, in which case, they'd definitely crossed.

The act of the overthrow commences when the fielder releases the ball (In the event of a boundary occurring such as this case).

So it would have been 5 runs with Rashid to the strikers end.

Taufel interview is here. It's good to see he is standing up for the umpires too:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html

 

[Titanic]

The act of the overthrow commences when the fielder releases the ball.

So many perfectly legitimate runs throughout the course of the match are actually overthrows? What utter nonsense. That law needs redrafting.

 

[Triggaaar]

The act of the overthrow commences when the fielder releases the ball.

No, that is clearly not what the rule says. The rule does not say 'the act of throwing the ball'. If it just meant when the fielder releases the ball, it would say:
'together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.
It wouldn't add the clause 'or act'.

The throw from the outfield was not an over-throw. It was a good throw. If the collecting fielder had then made a mess of catching it, and it had bounced off them, that would be the 'act' that caused the ball to go to the boundary.

You can't just pretend the rule doesn't say 'or act', and you can't just pretend 'or act' somehow means the act of throwing the ball, when it clearly doesn't.

 

[Eeyore]

So many perfectly legitimate runs throughout the course of the match are actually overthrows? What utter nonsense. That law needs redrafting.

No. It applies to boundaries that come as a result of overthrows. Not when the ball is still in play.

If there is an overthrow and that stays in play then the runs count as normal.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The act of the overthrow commences when the fielder releases the ball (In the event of a boundary occurring such as this case).

So it would have been 5 runs with Rashid to the strikers end.

Taufel interview is here. It's good to see he is standing up for the umpires too:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html

No, that is clearly not what the rule says. The rule does not say 'the act of throwing the ball'. If it just meant when the fielder releases the ball, it would say:
'together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.
It wouldn't add the clause 'or act'.

The throw from the outfield was not an over-throw. It was a good throw. If the collecting fielder had then made a mess of catching it, and it had bounced off them, that would be the 'act' that caused the ball to go to the boundary.

You can't just pretend the rule doesn't say 'or act', and you can't just pretend 'or act' somehow means the act of throwing the ball, when it clearly doesn't.

I understand both points, but really don't think it's clear cut at all, and I can see the logic from Taufel on this, but I'm leaning toward @Trigaaar because England ran 2 legitimate runs before the ball became an overthrow. An 'overthrow' only becomes that once it misses the stumps, Stokes completes a run while that is still a throw. No run is attempted on the overthrow, we therefore don't need to go back to whether they crossed at the time of the release of the throw, because a run wasn't started or progressed when it became an overthrow.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Dear God. I hopped off NSC to do some actual proper work that included defining complex financial calculations, and this thread is hurting my head even more than that did.

More champers anyone?